[Ernie.cal]

Irrelevant to our discussion. We don't grant rights based upon what a small number of people MIGHT or MIGHT NOT do in public.

Anybody can find examples of inappropriate behavior and then use that example to DENY rights or equal protection of the law. Apparently, you are a fair-weather believer in equal protection of law, i.e. you are only interested in granting rights to people who think and behave like you do!

[Luircin]

Homosexuals are already equally protected under the law. How are they not? Marriage? They already have the same rights as everyone else does, to marry a member of the opposite sex.

[weegee]

The BLTGIWANTTOFUINSTEAD crowd are pushing for the elimination of public sex laws as well as they discriminate unfairly against homosexuals who engage in this practice:

Sexual Freedom Activists Target 'Archaic, Unjust' Sex Laws

"I've seen firsthand how the misuse of these [public lewdness] laws has ruined the lives of gay and bisexual men," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

"Few victims of this abuse ever come forward for fear of further embarrassment and the system counts on this silence. We intend to shine some light on these shameful practices."

[ApesForEvolution]

"Irrelevant to our discussion..."

>>>

Balderdash Congressman Franks.

The question *IS* totally relevant, Ernie. It's yes or no, 5th try:

Do you think it's appropriate for queer men (of the "WE'RE QUEER, WE'RE HERE!" fame) to french-kiss in front of children in public, Ernie? YES or NO